DCIT, New Delhi V. Dr. Ramesh Kapur, New Delhi

ITA 4801/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2661 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R C DANDAY
• Assessee Lawyers: SINAY KUMAR SHARMA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C. SUDHIR , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4801 /DE L/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI VS. SH. RAMESH KAPUR, S - 135, GREATER KAILASH, PART - II, NEW DELHI PAN : AANPK1550C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. R.C. DANDAY, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY SH. SINAY KUMAR SHARMA, AR DATE OF HEARING 20.06.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31.07.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE R EVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 10/06/2014 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS) - II, NEW DELHI [ IN SHORT THE CIT - ( A ) ] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,08,90,625/ - MADE U/S. 50C OF THE IT ACT, 1961 MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN SALE DEED AND CIRCL E RATE OF THE PROPERTY. 3 (A) THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. (B) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2 ITA NO. 4801/DEL/2014 2. T HE BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ), THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD FIVE PLOTS OF AGRICULTURE LAND FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.5 1,09,375/ - , BUT ACCORDING TO HIM THE VALUE ASSESSED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY WAS MUCH HIGHER AS COMPARED TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS RECEIVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25/03/201 3 PRODUCED A TABLE OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS THE RATE PER ACRE ADOPTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR ST A M P DUTY PURPOSE. THE SAID TABLE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ANNEXURE SALE AS PER SALE DEED (IN RS) AGRICULT URAL LAND MEASURIN G (IN ACRE) RATE PER ACRE AS PER CIRCLE RATE AS PER STATE GOVERNMENT FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND IN RESPECT OF VILLAGE ROZKA, GUJJAR, SOHNA, GURGAON IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND (IN RS) SALE AS PER CIRCLE RATE (IN RS) DIFFERENCE IN TRANSFER OF PROPERTY (IN RS) A B C D E F D 2,50,000 1 18,00,000 18,00,000 15,50,000 E 6,25,000 2.5 18,00,000 45,00,000 38,75,000 F 18,75,000 7.5 18,00,000 1,35,00,000 1,16,25,000 G 17,50,000 7 18,00,000 1,26,00,000 1,08,50.000 H 6,09,375 2 18,00,000 36,00,000 29,90,625 TOTAL 51,09,375 20 3,60,00,000 3,08,90.625 2.1 THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THAT THE LAND SOLD WAS SITUATED UNDER THE ARAWALI HILL REGION AND DUE TO BANNING OF MINING ACTIVITY IN THE AREA, THE PRICES OF THE P ROPERTIES CAME DOWN IN THE AREA . THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE AND INVOKING SECTION 50 C OF THE ACT, MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,08,90, 625/ - . ON FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT - A, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ONLY 14.4 A C R E S OF LAND WAS SOLD AS AGAINST 20 ACRES HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ALSO CHALLENGED THE CIRCLE RATE ADOPTED BY THE AO 3 ITA NO. 4801/DEL/2014 AT RS.18,00, 000/ - PER ACRE AND CLAIMED THE EXISTING CIRCLE RATE AS RS.4,50, 000 / - PER ACRE. THE LD. CIT - ( A ) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER O F INVOKING SECTIO N 50 C OF THE ACT , HOWEVER , DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE QUANTUM OF LAND AND THE CIRCLE RATE OF THE LAND. THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT - ( A ) ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 5.1 IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER ITSELF THAT THE AO DID NOT INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C MECHANICALLY; AS PER THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 21.01.2013, HE ASKED THE APPELLANT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C MAY NOT BE APPLIED SINCE THE STAMP DUTY HAD BEEN CHARGED ON A VALUE HIGHER THAN THAT DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT A S THE SALE CONSIDERATION. 5.2 THE REFERENCE BY THE APPELLANT TO THE BANNING OF MINING ACTIVITIES IN THE ARAVALLI REGION BY THE APEX COURT DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE SALE CONSIDERATION LOWER THAN THE SALE VALUE AS PER THE CIRCLE RATE BECAUSE THE BAN WAS ONLY IN RESPECT OF MINING ACTIVITIES. SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENGAGED IN MINING ACTIVITIES AND THE LANDS IN QUESTION WERE STATED TO BE AGRICULTURAL LANDS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT RELATING TO SALE CONS IDERATION BEING LOWER THAN THE CIRCLE RATE. 5.3 HOWEVER, THE OBJECTIONS OF THE AR RELATING TO THE QUANTUM OF LAND DESCRIBED IN ANNEXURE G AND THE CIRCLE RATE NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. THE AO IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO VERIFY FROM THE SALE DEEDS, FILED BY THE A PPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE PRECISE ACRES OF LAND HELD AND SOLD BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO THE CIRCLE RATE IN RESPECT OF THESE LANDS, AND THEREAFTER, IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C, WORK OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TH E SALE VALUE AS PER THE CIRCLE RATE AND THE SALE CON SIDERATION DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. 2.2. A GGRIEVED , THE R EVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RE LEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS MENTIONED T HAT ADDITION OF RS.3,08,90, 625/ - MADE UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT - ( A ) . IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT - A HAS NOT DELETED T HE ADDITION, WHEREAS SHE HAS 4 ITA NO. 4801/DEL/2014 DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE QUANTUM OF LAND S O L D AND THE CIRCLE RATE OF THE LAND. IN PRINCIPLE, S HE HAS CONFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF INVOKING SECTION 50 C OF THE ACT, BUT DIRECTED ONLY FOR VERIFICATION OF THE COMPUTATION OF THE ADDITION IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF INCORRECT AREA OF THE LAND OR THE CIR CLE RATE ADOPTED BY HIM, CANNOT BE UPHELD AS SUCH. THE AREA OF THE LAND AND THE CIRCLE RATE ARE MATTER OF FACTS, WHICH COULD BE VERIFIED FROM THE RECORDS A N D A NY COMPUTATIONAL ERROR IN QUANTIFICATION OF THE ADDITION NEED TO BE VERIFIED AT THE END OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. IN OUR OP INION , THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT - ( A ) , IS WELL REASONED AND JUSTIFIED AND NO INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART IS REQUIRED. AC CORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 1 S T JULY , 201 7 . S D / - S D / - ( I.C. SUDHIR ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 1 S T JULY , 201 7 . RK / - (D.T.D) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI